Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th May 2009 22:32 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project If there is one technology in the Linux world that ruffles feathers whenever it's mentioned, it's Mono, the open source .Net clone. Since .Net comes out of Microsoft, and has some patents encircling it, it is said to be a legal nightmare. Supposedly, you can obtain a "royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" license from Microsoft regarding the patents surrounding Mono. iTWire decided to look at just how easy (or hard) it is to get such a license. Turns out it's kind of hard.
Thread beginning with comment 366106
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Help us decipher this
by pooo on Fri 29th May 2009 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Help us decipher this"
Member since:

The article has done an enormous service in pointing to a very basic problem. If it turns out correct that you can't easily get free and equal terms licenses, then Mono is and ought to be dead. And so must de Icaza be, as far as the community is concerned.

RAND does not mean "reasonable and *free*" it means reasonable and non-discriminatory which means they can charge a license fee if they like. Regarding the ECMA standards we shouldn't worry that they aren't providing license. Under the ECMA they are required, if they ask for a license at all, to provide that license under RAND terms but they are not required to ask for a license or provide one. What we should worry about is that they might try charging even a little bit which would signal the instant death of any FOSS application or platform that made the mistake of integrating mono.

And also, I agree with you about Miguel De Icasa. That guy is very dangerous to Gnome and FOSS in general and should be ostracized. Not to hate on the guy just for being proprietary shill but he just doesn't belong as such a trusted and important member of the FOSS world.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[3]: Help us decipher this
by xoluxo on Sun 31st May 2009 00:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Help us decipher this"
xoluxo Member since:

You are right that RAND does not mean free, which is why Microsoft went a step ahead and did RAND-Zero.

From the horse's mouth:

In particular:
"But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis for this purpose."

Reply Parent Score: 3